Motivational Trait Questionnaire, Heggestad & Kanfer

International Journal of Educational Research 33 (2000) 751} 751} 776

Chapter 4

Individual di! erences erences in trait motivation: development of the Motivational Trait Questionnaire Eric D. Heggestad*, Ruth Kanfer 

Department of Psychology, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523 1876, USA Georgia Institute of Technology, USA

Abstract

The development and initial evaluation of a measure of motivational traits, the Motivational Trait Questionnaire (MTQ), is described. Based upon theorizing by Kanfer and Heggestad (In B.M. Staw, & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 19 (pp. 1 }56). Greenwich Green wich,, CT: JAI JAI Pres Press, s, Inc.) Inc.) deve developm lopment ent of the MTQ began began by identif identifying ying and de"ning "ve motivational traits. Item pools were generated for each of the proposed traits, and initial facets were developed through a content-sorting procedure. Two studies were conducted to evaluate the MTQ at the item, facet, and scale levels. In Study 1, the facet scales were re "ned based on item-level factor analyses and item characteristics. An exploratory factor analysis of the re "ned MTQ facets provided support for three of the proposed traits. In Study 2, the facets were re-evaluated at the item-level. The factor structure of the MTQ facets was similar to that found in Study 1. An extension analysis from the three trait factors factors to extant measures of achievement, test and trait anxiety, and personality provided construct validity evidence for the MTQ scales. Results Resu lts from these stud studies ies suppo support rt the mult multidim idimensi ensional onal structure structure of moti motivati vational onal traits proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (In B.M. Staw, & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 19 (pp. 1 }56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.). Implications for motivati moti vation on rese research arch in educa education tion are disc discusse ussed. d.  200 2001 1 Else Elsevier vier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Individual di! erences erences in motivation have long been held to in#uence learning and performance (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, 1951; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark,

Corresponding onding author. * Corresp E-mail address: [email protected] (E.D. Heggestad). 0883-0355/01/$- see front matter 0883-0355/01/$matter  2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved. PII: PI I: S 0 8 8 3 -0 3 5 5 (0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 9 - 5

752

E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751 } 776

& Lowell, 1953; Murray, Murray, 1938). During the 1970 s and early 1980 s, however, interest interest in person-centered approaches waned as researchers grappled with the in#uences of situational factors on motivation. During the past 15 years, two major developments have spurred resurgent interest in theory and research directed toward understanding personality person ality-rela -related ted in#uences on motivational processes (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Higgins, 1998; Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991; Nicholls, 1984; VandeWalle, 1997; Winne, 1995). The "rst development pertains to progress in personality psychology, where theory and research on the underlying structure of personality have yielded several parsimonious and largely complementary frameworks (see, e.g., Costa & McCrae, 1992; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Eysenck, 1991; Goldberg, 1993; Tellegen & Waller, in press). Applied Applied researchers researchers have used these frameworks frameworks (most notably the Five-Factor Model) to examine the in#uence of traits such as Conscientiousness and Achievement on academic performance (Dollinger & Orf, 1991; Lao, 1980; Wong & Csikszentmihal tmi halyi, yi, 199 1991) 1) and job per perfor forman mance ce (Ba (Barri rrick ck & Mou Mount, nt, 199 1991; 1; Bar Barric rick, k, Mou Mount, nt, & Ju Judg dge, e, 19 1999 99;; Co Cost sta, a, 19 1996 96;; Ho Houg ugh, h, 19 1992 92;; Ho Houg ugh, h, Ea Eato ton, n, Du Dunn nnet ette te,, Ka Kamp mp,, & McCloy, 1990). Results from these lines of inquiry suggest that academic achievement and work motivation processes tend to be most closely associated with the positive agency domain of personality (i.e., individual di! erences erences in Surgency, Conscientiousness, and Achievement). Recent work by Kanfer, Ackerman, and Heggestad (1996) also suggests, however, that individual di! erences erences in traits such as Neuroticism have a detrimental e! ect ect on motivational processing during skill learning and performance (see also Kuhl, 2000). The second impetus for renewed interest in person-centered approaches to motivation stems from advances in goal theory and self-regulation (e.g., Carver & Scheier, 1982; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Church, 1997; Gollwitzer, 1993; Higgins, 1998). A central tenet of these goal-based approaches to motivation is that individual di! erence erencess in per person sonali ality ty a! ect ect motiv motivation ational al proce processes sses and subse subsequent quent beha behavior vior through thro ugh the their ir in#uen uence ce on the typ type/c e/char haract acter er of goa goals ls tha thatt ind indivi ividua duals ls ado adopt pt in achievement contexts. Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988), for example, posited that task persistence and achievement are a result of the individual's adoption of mastery or performance goals. Research in educational and organizational domains demonstrates that the types of goals selected by individuals are indeed related to critical self-regulatory mechanisms by which individuals persist in the face of di$cul cultie tiess and sust sustain ain mot motiva ivatio tion n in pro protra tracte cted d lea learni rning ng task taskss (e (e.g. .g.,, Ame Amess & Archer, 1988; Bou! ard, ard, Boisvert, Vezeau, Vezeau, & Larou Larouche, che, 1995; Jagac Jagacinski inski,, 1992; Martocchio, 1994; Tabernero & Wood, 1999; VandeWalle, 1997; Wood & Bandura, 1989). In partic particular, ular, research research has demo demonstrate nstrated d that indiv individual idualss who adopt maste mastery ry goals goa ls ten tend d to dem demons onstra trate te mor moree e! ective ective selfself-regul regulatory atory func functioni tioning ng durin during g task execution than individuals who adopt performance goals. Less attention, however, has been directed toward understanding the relationships between the types of goals adopted and individual di! erences erences in personality. Dweck and her col collea league guess (Be (Bempe mpecha chat, t, Lon London don,, & Dwe Dweck, ck, 199 1991; 1; Dwe Dweck, ck, 199 1996; 6; Dwe Dweck ck & Legg Leggett, ett, 1988) have suggested suggested that goal choices choices (mast (mastery ery vs. perfo performanc rmance) e) are rooted in implicit theories theories of intelligence, intelligence, such that individuals who hold an incremenincremental theory of intelligence (i.e., a belief that intelligence can be changed) are more likely


753

to adopt mastery goals than are individuals who hold a "xed theory of intelligence (i.e., a belief that intelligence is a stable trait). Although research "ndings provide partial support for this view (for a review, see Dweck & Leggett, 1988), the implicittheories-of-intelligence perspective does not address the potentially important in#uence of individual di! erences in motivationally relevant personality variables (e.g., need for achievement or fear of failure) on goal choice. In contrast to Dweck's formulation, Higgins (1998) has suggested that individual di! erences in motive strength in#uence adoption of security versus. promotion goals. That is, consistent with achievement motivation formulations, Higgins has suggested that the type of goal adopted is in part determined by individual di! erences in the motives for achievement and fear of failure. Similarly, Elliott and Church (1997) provided evidence that achievement motivation and the fear of failure have important relationships with the type of achievement goal (mastery, performance-approach, and performance avoidance) adopted. The purpose of the present chapter is two-fold: (a) to further explore the domain of personality dispositions that may be related to motivation in achievement and performance contexts; and (b) to report on the development of a measure expressly aimed at linking classic theorizing on achievement motivation with contemporary goal approaches to motivation and behavior. In the "rst section, the motivational trait-skill formulation proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) is reviewed. Next, issues related to the measurement of key motivational traits are discussed. The third section contains a description of the development of the Motivational Trait Questionnaire (MTQ), the psychometric properties of the measure, and evidence of convergent and discriminant validity. Finally, implications and limitations of the MTQ for studying personality-motivation-behavior processes are discussed.

1. A motivational trait-skills perspective

In an attempt to integrate advances in personality and motivation/self-regulation theory and research, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) suggested the potential utility of distinguishing between individual di! erences in motivational traits and motivational skills. Motivational traits were de"ned as stable, trans-situational individual di! erences in preferences related to approach and avoidance of goal-directed e! ort expenditures. In contrast, motivational skills were de"ned as integrated, self-regulatory competencies engaged during goal striving. Although a detailed description of the trait-skill relationship is beyond the scope of the present paper, Fig. 1 depicts the general relationship proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997). As indicated in the "gure, individual di! erences in motivational traits are posited to provide a! ordances for the development of motivational skills. In contrast to traits, however, individual di! erences in motivational skills represent competencies that may be developed not only through opportunities fostered by trait tendencies, but also through environmental in#uences on action. To organize the motivational trait domain, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) used the trait construct clustering approach suggested by Snow, Corno, and Jackson (1996).

754


Fig. 1. Taxonomic framework of motivationally relevant traits and skills. Note: From Kanfer and Heggestad (1997). Motivational trait and skill constructs are represented by the solid ovals. The dashed lines indicate the distinction between the trait complexes, and the solid lines indicate the in#uence of task/environment on traits and skills.

More speci"cally, traits thought to have motivational signi"cance were identi"ed from disparate research streams and then organized on the basis of their similarity. No a priori limitations were placed on the number of groupings. Consistent with classic formulations of achievement motivation (emphasizing the need to achieve success and the need to avoid failure) and more recent conceptualizations emphasizing appetitive and avoidance goal orientations, the construct grouping yielded two distinct superordinate motivational trait complexes, tentatively termed Achievement and Anxiety. While the Achievement trait complex encompasses traits characterized by approach-oriented tendencies, the Anxiety trait complex encompasses traits characterized by avoidance-oriented tendencies. Each of the superordinate trait complexes was proposed to comprise more narrowly de"ned traits. 1.1. Traits of the Achievement complex

The literature associated with the Achievement complex can be subdivided into two broad perspectives di! erentiated by their basic approaches. The "rst, referred to as the achievement motivation approach, is re#ected in the traditions of McClelland (1951) and Atkinson (1957; Atkinson & Feather, 1966). This approach, of which achievement goal theorizing is a direct descendent, has sought to identify and di! erentiate multiple dimensions of the achievement construct. The second, which we refer to as the personality taxonomy approach, is re#ected in the tradition of Murray (1938). This approach has sought to locate achievement as a single, unidimensional trait within comprehensive taxonomic representations of personality. Our review of the achievement complex from both the achievement motivation and personality taxonomy approaches led to further speci"cations of the Personal Mastery and Competitive


755

Excellence traits discussed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997), and to the identi"cation of an additional trait, Hard Work. 1.1.1. Personal Mastery The roots of Personal Mastery lie in Murray's (1938) n (need) Achievement construct which he de"ned to include a striving To excel one's self (p. 164). With regard to more contemporary theorizing, Personal Mastery can clearly be identi"ed in both the achievement motivation and the personality taxonomy approaches. Speci"cally, Personal Mastery is de"ned similarly to Jackson, Ahmed, and Heapy 's (1976) Excellence, Helmreich and Spence's (1978; Spence & Helmreich, 1983) Mastery, Cassidy and Lynn's (1989) Pursuit of Excellence and Mastery, Dweck and Leggett's (1988) Learning Orientation, and Tellegen and Waller's (in press) and Hough's (1992) de"nitions of trait Achievement. Personal Mastery is a self-referent form of achievement striving. An individual with a high standing on this trait de"nes standards of excellence in terms of personal improvement and persists in striving to achieve those standards despite frustrations and di$culties. Individuals with a high level of Personal Mastery generally show a preference for tasks that challenge their skills and abilities. These individuals are competitive with themselves, always seeking to be the best they can be . `

a

`

a

1.1.2. Competitive Excellence With the exception of Murray (1938), who de"ned n Achievement to include a tendency to strive to rival and surpass others (p. 164), Competitive Excellence was generally not represented within the personality taxonomy approach to the achievement domain. Based on dimensions of the achievement construct identi"ed from the achievement motivation approach, Competitive Excellence is de "ned to re#ect Jackson et al.'s (1976) Competitive Acquisitiveness and Status, Helmreich and Spence's (1983). Competitiveness, Dweck and Leggett's (1988) Performance Orientation, and Cassidy and Lynn's (1989) Status Aspiration, Competitiveness, Acquisitiveness, and Dominance. In direct contrast to Personal Mastery, Competitive Excellence is an other-referent form of achievement striving. An individual with a high standing on this trait adopts normative standards of excellence. The absolute quality of performance is not of paramount importance for these individuals because they de"ne success relative to others; what matters is that their performance exceeds that of others. These `

a

 Competitive Excellence may, however, be captured by other traits within these taxonomies. Hough (1992), for example, de"ned the trait of Potency as an individual's degree of impact, in#uence, and energy (p. 144), and suggested that individuals with a high standing on this trait are appropriately forceful and persuasive, optimistic and vital, and [have] the energy to get things done (p. 144). Similarly, Tellegen and Waller (in press) indicate that a person high in Social Potency is forceful and decisive; is persuasive and likes to in#uence others; enjoys or would enjoy leadership roles; enjoys being noticed, being the center of attention (p. 59). Thus, although not contained within the Hough or Tellegen and Waller de"nitions of trait achievement, Competitive Excellence does appear to be represented by, though not equivalent to, other traits within the respective taxonomies. `

a

`

a

`

a

756


individuals are very competitive, often attempting to create competition in otherwise non-competitive situations. Furthermore, these individuals have a strong desire to be respected by others for their accomplishments. 1.1.3. Hard work Not identi"ed as part of the original trait taxonomy presented by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997), our review of the literature associated with the Achievement complex suggested the possibility of a third motivational trait. In particular, many of the perspectives we examined identi"ed an e! ort or vigor dimension of achievement. For example, from the achievement motivation approach, Spence and Helmreich 's (1983) Work Orientation and Cassidy and Lynn's (1989) Work Ethic both re#ect a desire or drive to work hard. Similarly, from the personality taxonomy approach, both Hough (1992) and Tellegen and Waller (in press) indicated that an individual with a high standing on trait achievement would tend to enjoy hard work and/or endorse the work ethic. The trait of Hard Work was proposed. Individuals with a high standing on this trait would be expected to exert great amounts of e! ort to complete a task, regardless of their level of intrinsic task enjoyment. These individuals are hard working and diligent. They have a strong desire to keep busy and "nd it di$cult to simply relax and do nothing. To account for this aspect of the achievement complex. 1.2. Traits of the anxiety complex

Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) did not initially identify speci"c motivational traits within the Anxiety complex. Rather, they suggested that the complex might best be represented by the communality between general anxiety, fear of failure, and test anxiety. Such an amorphous de"nition of the constituent traits of the Anxiety complex, however, is less than ideal for investigating the relationships between this complex and motivational skills and performance. Therefore, we reviewed the general anxiety, fear of failure, and test anxiety literatures to identify and de"ne speci"c motivational traits to occupy this complex. Early conceptualizations of anxiety-based motivational traits were de"ned in terms of a fear and avoidance of failure-threatening situations. Examples of such representations include n Infavoidance (Murray, 1938), the fear of failure characterization of the achievement motive (McClelland, 1951; McClelland et al., 1953), and the motive to avoid failure (Atkinson, 1957; Atkinson & Feather, 1966). The nature of the anxiety domain changed, however, when these avoidance-oriented constructs were linked to the concept of test anxiety (Atkinson & Litwin, 1960). From that point forward, theory and research into test anxiety blossomed while that on failure-avoidance waned. This linkage went unchallenged until relatively recently. Given changes in the conceptualizations of test anxiety over the years (see Hembree, 1988, for a review),  It should be noted, however, that the de"nitions of trait achievement provided by Hough (1992) and by Tellegen and Waller (2000) represent a blending of Personal Mastery and Hard Work. That is, they make no di! erentiation between these proposed aspects of the achievement complex.


757

contemporary researchers have identi"ed a mismatch in the behaviors associated with the traditional notions of the failure-avoidance constructs and those associated with test anxiety. For example, Heckhausen (1991) has maintained that test anxiety, as a general tendency to experience anxiety reactions within testing situations, fails to capture the avoidance aspects of behavior that characterized the classic notions of the fear of failure and the motive to avoid failure. Designed to capture the tradition represented by these two aspects of the anxiety complex, two motivational traits are proposed: Failure Avoidance and Achievement Anxiety. 1.2.1. Failure Avoidance Failure Avoidance is proposed to capture the avoidance aspects of behavior represented in the classic conceptualizations of n Infavoidance (Murray, 1938), fear of failure (McClelland et al., 1953), and the motive to avoid failure (Atkinson, 1957; Atkinson & Feather, 1966). An individual with a high standing on this trait would be expected to actively avoid achievement-oriented situations whenever possible due to anxiety caused by the possibility of experiencing failure. 1.2.2. Achievement Anxiety As test anxiety represents the tendency to experience anxiety within testing situations, Achievement Anxiety is proposed to re#ect a tendency to experience anxiety responses within achievement (i.e., failure-threatening) situations. The primary distinction between test anxiety and Achievement Anxiety is in the breadth of situations to which each is applicable. Speci"cally, achievement anxiety is intended to capture a tendency to experience anxiety reactions across a wide range of achievement-oriented situations, such as meeting a deadline at work, participating in an athletic competition, or planning and hosting an important party. As such, academic testing situations represent only one of several classes of situations relevant to achievement anxiety.

2. Motivational trait assessment

The "rst prominent measure of individual di! erences in the achievement and anxiety domains was the thematic apperception test (TAT; Murray, 1943). Used extensively in the research of McClelland and Atkinson (McClelland et al., 1953), the TAT came under intense scrutiny as a result of questions concerning its validity and reliability (see Spangler, 1992). As the TAT fell out of favor, numerous self-report measures of achievement and test anxiety were created. After reviewing many of these measures, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) concluded that no instrument was capable of providing construct appropriate, independent assessments of each of the motivational traits of the achievement and anxiety complexes, and called for the development of a new, more comprehensive measure. 2.1. Personality taxonomy measures

Most multi-trait inventories include traits related to the achievement and anxiety trait complexes. Assessing traits de"ned at a broad level of generality, however, these

758


measures fail to di! e rentiate among the more narrowly de"ned motivational traits. For example, the de"nitions of trait achievement provided by Tellegen and Waller (in press) and Hough (1992) incorporate aspects of both Personal Mastery and Hard Work, but do not include any content related to Competitive Excellence. Similarly, the anxiety-based traits included in each of these taxonomies are clearly much broader in scope than Failure Avoidance or Achievement Anxiety. Broad-based measures from the personality taxonomy approach, therefore, are of little utility for assessing the motivational traits associated with the Achievement and Anxiety complexes.

2.2. Achievement motivation measures

Researchers working from within what has been termed the achievement motivation approach have created numerous measures conceptually related to the achievement complex. Examples of such measures include the Aberdeen Academic Motivation Inventory (Entwistle, 1968), the Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (Helmreich & Spence, 1978), and the Achievement Motivation Questionnaire (Lynn, 1969; see also, Hermans, 1970; Mehrabian, 1969, Murray, 1938). An examination of these measures reveals that many contain items related to Personal Mastery, Competitive Excellence, and/or Hard Work. A signi"cant limitation of these measures, however, is that most of them do not de"ne separate scales for each of these traits (the one notable exception is Helmreich and Spence's (1978) Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire). Therefore, prior to implementing these measures to assess the traits of the Achievement complex, rational or empirical (or both) methods would have to be used to derive distinct scales for the three traits. Unfortunately, as suggested by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997), many of these measures contain very few items related to Competitive Excellence, which would make the development of psychometrically acceptable scales for this trait di$cult. A second limitation of these measures is that none of them includes items associated with the traits of the Anxiety complex. This lack of item content can be traced back to Atkinson and Litwin's (1960) linkage of the Anxiety complex with test anxiety. At that point, most achievement motivation researchers stopped developing measures to assess traits associated with the Anxiety complex, opting rather to employ measures of test anxiety. Only two instruments intended to assess the classic fear of failure construct were found: Good and Good's (1975) Fear of Failure scale and Murray's (1938) measure of n Infavoidance. Although each of these measures contained items relevant to both failure avoidance and achievement anxiety, neither provided scales to di! erentiate the items. Furthermore, consistent with Heckhausen's (1991) observation, our examination of items from test anxiety measures (e.g., Alpert & Haber's (1960) Debilitating Anxiety Questionnaire, Morris, Davis, and Hutching's (1981), Revised Worry-Emotionality Scale, and Sarason's (1978) Test Anxiety Scale and his (1984) Reactions to Tests) indicated that they contain item content relevant to achievement anxiety, but not to failure avoidance.


759

2.3. Goal orientation measures

The recent focus of achievement motivation researchers on achievement goal orientation has resulted in the development of several additional measures. Early goal orientation measures (Ames & Archer, 1988; Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Roedel, Schraw, & Plake, 1994) assessed two orientations to achievement: learning orientation, which is conceptually similar Personal Mastery; and performance orientation, which is conceptually similar to Competitive Excellence. More recent measures (Elliott & Harackiewicz, 1996; Midgely et al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997) have been developed to re#ect a theoretical di! erentiation of the performance orientation construct into two distinct orientations. The "rst is performance-approach, which represents a striving to outperform others. The second is performance-avoidance, which represents a desire to avoid situations that could result in failure or negative judgments from others (similar to our proposed trait of failure avoidance). While these more recent measures may be capable of assessing three of the proposed motivational traits, they are clearly incapable of providing assessments of either hard work or achievement anxiety. Furthermore, an item-level evaluation of these goal orientation measures suggests that they provide more direct assessments of the types of goals people adopt within speci"c contexts rather than the motivational traits that give rise to such goals. In particular, many of the goal orientation measures consist of items that are situationally speci"ed, often tied to classroom situations. Since traits represent stable patterns of performance across situations, the situational speci"city of the items clearly removes these measures from the trait domain. The measure created by Button et al. (1996), is an exception. Speci "cally created to assess goal orientations at the dispositional level, the items of this measure are not tied to any particular situational context. Designed to assess only learning and performance orientations, however, the Button et al. (1996) measure could only provide assessments of two of the proposed motivational traits. 2.4. Measure mixing and matching

Acknowledging the limitations of any one measure for providing a comprehensive assessment of the motivational trait domain, it would be possible to assess the traits by piecing together various extant measures developed from the perspectives described above. Such a mix-and-match approach, however, can limit our understanding of how these traits are related to motivational skills and performance. For example, two researchers, both wanting to evaluate the in#uence of the "ve motivational traits on academic performance, could create questionnaire batteries for their studies by choosing particular scales from the various extant measures. It would be unlikely that their batteries would include the same scales, and, as a consequence, it would be unlikely that they would in fact be assessing the same constructs (or at least identical aspects of the same constructs). If the results of these two studies were to di! er, interpretation would be di$cult given that the results would be confounded with the di! erences in the measures employed.

760


The point here is this: Using di! erent measures of key motivational traits can prevent comparisons of "ndings across studies and hinder our capacity to develop an understanding of the relationships among motivational traits, self-regulatory skill development, and learning and performance. Thus, a measure is needed that provides construct valid assessments of each of the "ve motivational traits posited to constitute the motivational trait taxonomy. In the following section, we report two studies aimed at developing and evaluating a more comprehensive measure of the motivational trait domain.

3. The Motivational Trait Questionnaire

Based on the trait de"nitions provided above, item pools were created to assess individual di! erences in each of the "ve proposed motivational traits. Items were generated or adapted from existing sources such that each item represented only one of the proposed traits. The "ve item pools included a total of 283 items, with 71 items representing Personal Mastery, 63 items representing Hard Work, 55 items representing Competitive Excellence, 57 items representing Achievement Anxiety, and 37 items representing Failure Avoidance. A conceptual review of the item pools indicated the potential for further di ! erentiation, so we decided to de"ne content facets for each of the "ve motivational traits. To avoid relying exclusively on item-level factor analysis to develop these facets, we initially speci"ed them by sorting the items within an item pool with respect to content. There were no a priori restrictions as to the number or nature of the content facets for each trait. The sorting procedure resulted in 20 facets and "ve (one for each trait) sets of unclassi"ed items consisting of those items that could not be sorted into meaningful content facets. The initial facets identi "ed for each trait, as well as the number of items comprising each facet, are presented in Table 1. 3.1. Study 1

Having developed trait de"nitions, item pools, and initial content facets for each of the "ve motivational traits, the next step in the development of the MTQ was to evaluate the instrument empirically at the item and scale levels. 3.1.1. Method One hundred and sixty-six (103 females) undergraduate students took part in this study for course credit. Each participant responded to 421 computer administered self-report items using a 6-point Likert-type response scale that ranged from very untrue of me to very true of me. In addition to the 283 items of the MTQ, the item set included 90 items from the Unisex Edition of the ACT Interest Inventory (UNIACT; Lamb & Prediger, 1981) and 48 items from the NEO-PI-R Agreeableness scale (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The items from these two measures were included to reduce the likelihood of response sets given the large number of items related to achievement situations. All items were randomly assigned to a position in the questionnaire.


761

Table 1 Initial facets for each of the traits Trait

Facet

Number of items

Personal Mastery

Best E! ort Desire to Learn Determination Di$cult Goals Focus on Improvement

8 16 17 9 11

Hard Work

Concentration Conscientiousness Energy Enjoy Hard Work

8 7 17 15

Competitive Excellence

Competition Seeking Normative Comparison Other Recognition Other Referent Goals

10 8 7 19

Achievement Anxiety

Emotionality Interference Social Worry

12 12 12 17

Failure Avoidance

Active Avoidance Risk Avoidance Social Embarrassment

18 9 6

3.1.2. Results and discussion The "rst set of analyses was directed toward empirical re"nement of the facet scales. Principal-axis factor analyses were conducted on each of the "ve item pools, with the number of factors set equal to the number of facets speci"ed in the sorting procedure (the unclassi"ed items were not included in these analyses). When a majority of items from a facet had salient loadings on a factor, all of the items associated with that facet were retained. When the majority of items from two or more facets had salient loadings on a single factor, the items from those facets were combined to de "ne a single facet (e.g., the focus on improvement and di$cult goals facets of Personal Mastery and the energy and conscientiousness facets of Hard Work). Finally, when a majority of items from a facet did not load on one factor, but rather loaded inconsistently across factors, the facet was disbanded and its items placed in the unclassi"ed category. This rational}empirical process resulted in the identi"cation of 11 facets: three each for Personal Mastery and Achievement Anxiety, two for both the hard work and competitive excellence, and one for failure avoidance. The names of the retained facets can be seen in Table 2. Item-level analyses were then performed on each of the resulting facets to remove redundant and unrelated items. When a correlation of r *0.60 was found between two items on a facet, the items were examined for content similarity. If the content was

762


1 1 0 1

9

8

7

6

5 s e l a c s t e c a f Q T M e h t f o s n o i t a l e r r o c d n a , s t n e i c $ e o c y t i l i b a i l e r , s n o i t a i v e d d r a d n a t s , 2 s e l n a b a e T M 

4

3

2

1 D S n a e M s m e t I

s e l b a i r a V

. t d n e e l t i n t a 0 o c o e w h t t 1 0 1 5 8 n . . . 0 i 0 0 0 d e " ( i t p 1 7 1 n 3 8 7 e t . . . a 0 d 0 0 i t n y a l l c a " i 7 i 2 0 3 t i 8 n . 6 . 3 . i . 7 n i g 0 0 0 0 , s t e n e r a 2 8 1 1 1 m 2 0 0 0 2 9 e . . . . . 0 v 0 0 0 0 o 2 0 . r 0 ! ! p m $ i 9 9 5 3 2 4 3 2 2 2 9 . . . . . . 6 " 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 o r s n u a c h o t 1 0 8 6 0 3 2 f . 0 9 . 1 . 0 . 0 . 2 . 4 . d r . e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l t d n o a a b ! ! l s e r g i n a 3 8 1 7 0 8 9 8 s o 0 0 1 0 3 5 8 g n l . . . . . . . 7 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 l o a 0 0 t i n t u a o g ! ! ! ! c l a e i $ r i 0 2 0 9 2 9 8 5 1 r d d 7 9 . 7 . 2 . 2 . 2 . 0 . 0 . 4 . . , o n c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 s ; i t a e d ! ! c l e m a i f a e 5 5 6 5 1 9 5 4 0 6 o t t 0 0 8 7 7 0 0 2 5 - h . . . . . . . . . 6 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 g t o w f t n o ! ! ! ! o , l a n 5 0 5 3 4 2 8 2 1 1 9 1 8 . o 0 r i 6 6 6 7 0 2 0 0 2 5 8 a . . . . . . . . . . . t 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a e 0 0 0 p n ( i p ! ! ! b p a s m t a t o n c t 4 5 9 8 5 7 6 7 6 5 8 e n i 8 5 6 8 0 2 0 7 6 5 3 a a . . . . . . . . . . . c c 6 7 7 8 2 9 6 9 5 0 2 s " $ 1 i i 1 1 e y n r g o c e i t s y 5 5 3 1 3 9 9 6 8 8 4 s 5 7 4 3 3 0 4 9 2 3 1 t . . 8 . . . 2 . . 0 . . 1 . . a e i l 9 m r a i 4 9 3 4 3 4 0 8 6 6 3 3 0 4 2 4 4 l b a a 5 i l n 5 1 e . o s 0 r r y e 1 0 1 1 0 8 2 7 4 c 1 1 1 1 8 1 1 p $ 1 6 1 1 n f e t o " s r i t s e n c a n o a f c s g h l t s l a i l n r a e a o k n e o r e G k r e c g t a e o c t e n t e n s r y y n r S n a l a n n t W r e i g a o y e e l d e e i n l i t i e r o t e t d s i a y e x L e o c s l o r a G a c f r a c v a n n t n n e e i n o o h x i a t i a n i e l t t y A e m t p H y R e t i s r d r o i a a a m e y e e e e e l r p n y g t f r r t s o v v k e r ' h e r i e e r m r s o o i i v r t s m m o e j e i t t h h a r T t l r a e e t o o c n n m . o c a D D M w E E t n e A e a e O C e W E I n . . . v t r b p . . . . . . . . e o i 8 9 0 l d u 1 o C . n 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 s r t m h i r 1 a 1 N r o a o c r e o P H C A F s C 0 9 .




763

judged to be similar, one item was removed from the facet. Internal consistency reliability analyses were also performed. Items with corrected item-total correlations below r "0.40 were examined, and most were removed. After the facets were re"ned, the unclassi"ed items were considered. An unclassi"ed item was added to a facet when at least one of three conditions was met. Either (a) it was found to correlate more strongly with one facet than with any of the others, (b) its correlations with other items in the facet were less than 0.60, or (c) its content was judged to be consistent with the other items in the facet. Based on these procedures, a total of 128 items were retained across the 11 facets. The number of items per facet, the facet means and standard deviations, the reliability coe$cients, and the facet scale intercorrelations are presented in Table 2. As shown, the Cronbach's  reliability coe$cients were acceptable for each facet. To examine the interrelations among the 11 facet scales exploratory principal-axis factor analysis (with squared multiple correlations on the main diagonal) was performed. Evaluation of the eigenvalues by the Humphreys}Montanelli parallel analysis procedure (Humphreys & Montanelli, 1975; Montanelli & Humphreys, 1976) indicated that a three-factor solution would be most appropriate. Because of the possibility of non-trivial relations between the traits (and therefore factors), the three-factor solution was obliquely rotated using Tucker and Finkbeiner's (1981) direct arti"cial personal probability function rotation (DAPPFR). The "nal factor solution is presented in Table 3 (salient loadings are de"ned as those'0.40). The "rst factor was de"ned by salient positive loadings from the Personal Mastery and Hard Work facets, but also had a salient (negative) loading from the one facet (Active Avoidance) associated with Failure Avoidance. The second factor was de"ned by salient positive loadings from the three Achievement Anxiety facets and from the Active Avoidance facet. The third factor was clearly identi"ed as a Competitive Excellence factor, with substantial positive loadings from the two facets representing this trait. The three factors were found to be largely uncorrelated. Overall, Study 1 provided initial evidence for the viability of the facets as measures of the hypothesized motivational trait complexes. At the trait level, however, the results suggested that Personal Mastery and Hard Work do not represent distinct motivational traits. Table 2 shows that the correlations between the facets of these two proposed traits ranged from 0.65 to 0.74. The lack of distinction found between Personal Mastery and Hard Work is consistent with the perspectives of both Hough (1992) and Tellegen and Waller (in press) who, within each of their respective personality taxonomies, de"ned the trait of achievement to include aspects of both Personal Mastery and Hard Work. Further, evidence from the achievement motivation approach, where there tended to be a distinction drawn between Personal Mastery and Hard Work, also suggests a non-trivial association between these dimensions. For instance, the work orientation and mastery scales of the Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) have generally been found to correlate in the 0.30}0.40 range (uncorrected, see Ackerman & Ackerman, 1989; Helmreich & Spence, 1978). Also, Cassidy and Lynn (1989) reported two studies in which they found correlations of 0.51 and 0.36 (uncorrected) between their Work Ethic and Mastery scales.

764


Table 3 Oblique (DAPPFR) factor solution for the MTQ facet scales (Study 1) Variable

Factor 1

Personal Mastery Determination Desire to Learn Mastery Goals Hard Work Enjoy Hard Work Energy Competitive Excellence Other Referent Goals Competition Seeking Achievement Anxiety Worry Emotionality Interference Failure Avoidance Active Avoidance Factor intercorrelations Factor 1: Personal Mastery/Hard Work Factor 2: Achievement Anxiety Factor 3: Competitive Excellence Parallel analysis results Real roots Random roots 

2

3

0.00 0.07 0.77 0.81 !0.01 !0.09 0.15 0.15 0.81 0.87 !0.04 !0.07 0.09 !0.06 0.87 !0.06

0.27 0.04 !0.17

0.64 0.98

0.15 0.05 !0.20

0.01 0.85 0.03 0.79 0.77 !0.00

!0.55

0.44 !0.05

* !0.10

* 0.13 !0.18 1

2

4.04 0.54

2.42 0.39

3

4

1.07 0.19 0.29 0.21

Salient loadings ($0.40) are presented in boldface.

Failure Avoidance also did not emerge as a distinct motivational trait. This trait, however, was only represented by a single facet. Although neither the eigenvalues greater than one or the Humphreys}Montanelli parallel analysis procedure supported the extraction of a fourth factor, a four-factor principal-axis factor analysis solution was examined to evaluate whether failure avoidance may be di! erentiable with further item/facet development. In this analysis, a single salient loading from the active avoidance facet de"ned the fourth factor. Thus, with further item development Failure Avoidance may emerge as a distinct motivational trait. 3.2. Study 2

The results of Study 1 suggested that three of the proposed motivational traits are di! erentiable empirically. Before we can be con "dent that the MTQ scales do in fact measure the intended traits, however, construct validity must be established. That is, the relations between the MTQ traits and extant measures of achievement, test and


765

trait anxiety, and personality must be evaluated. The purpose of Study 2, therefore, was twofold: (a) to re-evaluate the MTQ at the item, facet, and scale levels, and (b) to assess the measure's construct validity. 3.2.1. Method Undergraduates completed a large self-report battery as part of a larger study (Ackerman & Cianciolo, 1999). The battery, which was self-paced and computer administered, included the MTQ and extant measures of achievement, test and trait anxiety, personality, and motivational skills. Of the 119 participants (81 females) who completed the battery, 31 (21 females) had participated in Study 1. The MTQ contained the 128 items retained on the basis of the results of Study 1. The wording of many items was slightly revised, but no new items were included. Participants responded to each item using a 6-point scale ranging from very untrue of me to very true of me. The items were randomly assigned to a position in the questionnaire. Two measures of achievement were included to provide assessments of convergent validity. The Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO; Helmreich & Spence, 1978), which includes scales for mastery, work orientation, and competitiveness, was administered because of its multidimensional approach to the achievement construct. Responses were made using a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The 21-item Achievement scale from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982) was also administered. In contrast to the WOFO, the MPQ Achievement scale provided a unidimensional assessment of the achievement construct from a taxonomic framework of personality. A true-false response scale was used. The 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983) was administered as an indicator of trait anxiety. Under the trait instructions, participants were asked to indicate the degree to which each item described the way they generally feel. Responses were made using a 4-point scale from almost always to almost never . To provide a multidimensional assessment of test anxiety, the Sarason (1984) Reactions to Tests (RTT) inventory was given. The 40-item RTT contains four 10-item scales: E E E

E

Worry assesses cognitive preoccupation with performance evaluation; Tension measures the tendency to experience emotional reactions to a test; Bodily Reaction assesses the propensity to experience physical symptoms, or reactions, to evaluative situations; and Test Irrelevant Thinking assesses the tendency to experience distracting thoughts while taking a test.

A 4-point scale was used, with response options ranging from not at all typical of me to very typical of me. Three measures from the Ackerman and Cianciolo (1999) study were also made available. The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992) provided an opportunity to examine the relations between the motivational traits and

766


the broad personality domain. The NEO-FFI contains 60 items organized into "ve trait scales: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The 59-item Go! and Ackerman (1992) Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE) scale was also administered. Go! and Ackerman (1992) have de"ned typical intellectual engagement as one's typical expression of a desire to engage and understand their world, their interest in a wide variety of things, and their preference for a complete understanding of a complex topic or problem (p. 539). Participants endorsed each item using a 6-point response scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Finally, Motivational Skills were assessed with an 18-item scale designed to measure self-con"dence for learning, studying, and test taking (see Ackerman & Kanfer, 1993). Responses were made using a 9-point scale from no con xdence to certain. A composite score was obtained by summing the responses for each item. `

a

3.2.2. Results and discussion Given that 31 individuals had previously participated in Study 1, test-retest sameform correlations for the 11 MTQ facets were examined (the between-administrations interval ranged from two to "ve weeks). Composite scores from each of the facets from Study 1 were correlated with identically de"ned composites from Study 2. The correlations, which are presented in Table 4, all exceeded 0.80. These correlations are of similar magnitude to short-term test-retest correlations of other trait measures. Costa and McCrae (1992), for example, reported correlations over a short period of time (p. 45) from 0.66 to 0.92 for the facets of the NEO-PI, and from 0.86 to 0.91 for the Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness domain scales. Although the present results provide initial evidence of the stability of scores on the MTQ facets over time, the time elapsed between assessments was clearly too short to de"nitively suggest the facets represent trait measures. To make such an assertion, correlations of nearly the same magnitude as those found in the present study would need to be observed over a period of at least one year (for examples, see Block, 1977; Costa & McCrae, 1992; Gough, 1987). In addition, the small sample used in the present analyses leaves substantial room for error in these estimates. The group of participants who completed both Studies 1 and 2 (n"31) and the group of participants who completed Study 2 only (n"85) were combined for the remainder of the analyses. `

a

 Since the MTQ was developed and revised on the basis of both studies, the inclusion of those participants who had previously participated in Study 1 could be problematic in that they could overdetermine the resultant structure of the measure. If, however, the responses from these individuals are not distinguishable from the group of participants who participated in the present investigation only, then combining the two samples to form a larger composite sample should not be problematic. To assess the equivalence of the groups, we conducted a series of t -tests comparing the group means on each of the 11 facets (still de"ned identically to Study 1). None of the 11 tests reached statistical signi"cance. In addition, we also performed a Box's M test (Box, 1950) to assess the similarity of the covariances between the 11 facet scores for the two groups. This test was also non-signi"cant (Box's M "52.36; Approximate "1.03; p"n.s.). Based on the convergent results from these two sets of analyses, the samples F  were combined for the remaining analyses.


767

Table 4 Test-retest correlations for the 11 facet scales of the MTQ Trait

Facet

Correlation

Personal Mastery

Determination Desire to Learn Mastery Goals

0.82 0.89 0.92

Hard Work

Enjoy Hard Work Energy

0.91 0.96


Other Referent Goals Competition Seeking

0.85 0.92

Achievement Anxiety

Worry Emotionality Interference

0.84 0.84 0.81

Failure Avoidance

Active Avoidance

0.84



Correlations are based on a small sample, n"31.

Item-level analyses were conducted to re-evaluate and re"ne the MTQ facet scales. Each facet was examined for items that were redundant, range restricted, or that had only weak relations to the other items within the facet. Very few items were removed as a result of these procedures. Item-level principal-axis factor analyses with oblique (DAPPFR) rotation were then performed on each of three item sets: the Personal Mastery and Hard Work items (the items representing these traits were combined on the basis of the results of Study 1), the Competitive Excellence items, and the Achievement Anxiety items. For the Personal Mastery/Hard Work items, a threefactor solution was retained. The three factors corresponded closely to the three Personal Mastery facets, with the items from the two Hard Work facets loading inconsistently across the three factors. As a result, some of the items from the Hard Work facets were incorporated into the three Personal Mastery facets. A two-factor solution was retained in the analysis of the Competitive Excellence items. The factor solution was consistent with the two hypothesized facets of this trait (i.e., Other Referent Goals and Competition Seeking). In the analysis of the Achievement Anxiety items, a three-factor solution was retained. Although the "rst two factors corresponded closely to the Worry and Emotionality facets, the third factor was not de"ned by the Interference items. Rather, the third factor was de"ned by items related to an apprehension about evaluation. Based on these results, the Interference facet was disbanded and an Evaluation Apprehension facet was created. Overall, these analyses led to the retention of 82 items organized into nine facet scales. Descriptive information and the intercorrelations for the facet scales are presented in Table 5. As

 Because the Failure Avoidance trait was only represented by a single facet in Study 1, these items were not factor analyzed at the item level in the present study.

768


shown, despite the number of items removed, the Cronbach's alpha internal consistency reliability coe$cients remained high. The nine facets were subjected to an exploratory principal-axis factor analysis. Based on the Humphreys}Montanelli parallel analysis procedure, a three-factor solution was retained and obliquely rotated using the DAPPFR procedure. The solution is presented in Table 6. Although the removal of the Hard Work facets changed the order in which the factors emerged, the solution appeared quite similar to the factor solution found in Study 1. In particular, the "rst factor (the second factor in Study 1) appeared to capture the Achievement Anxiety facets and the Failure Avoidance facet. There was also, however, a salient positive loading from the other Referent Goals facet of the Competitive Excellence trait. The second factor was largely a personal mastery factor, de"ned by salient positive loadings from the three facets from the Personal Mastery trait. The third factor was a competitive excellence factor, with salient loadings from only the two facets of this trait. Although the factor intercorrelations were larger than those found in Study 1, these correlations were again found to be relatively low. To assess the potential for the proposed Failure Avoidance trait to emerge with additional scale development a four-factor solution was again examined. Consistent with the results of Study 1, the only salient loading on the fourth factor was from the Failure Avoidance facet. Although there was no evidence to support the extraction of a fourth factor in either Study 1 or 2, the fact that the fourth factor was de"ned by loadings from the failure avoidance facet in both studies suggests that this trait may emerge as distinct with the development of additional facets. To assess the construct validity of the MTQ trait factors, an extension analysis (Dwyer, 1937) was conducted. Extension analysis is a procedure in which external variables, the measures of achievement, test and trait anxiety and personality in the present context, are correlated with factors that have been de"ned without regard to these external variables. That is, the loadings of a particular extant scales on the factors are interpreted as correlations between that scale and the latent variable de"ned by the factor. The loadings from the extant measures on the three MTQ trait factors are presented in Table 7 (those loading greater than $0.40 are shown in boldface). The results provided good initial evidence for the viability of the facets as measures of the hypothesized motivational traits. Speci"cally, the anxiety factor was positively related to trait anxiety, the four subscales of the Reactions to Tests measure, and Neuroticism. The Personal Mastery factor had strong positive relations with both the WOFO Mastery and Work Orientation scales, the MPQ Achievement scale, NEO-FFI Conscientiousness, and Typical Intellectual Engagement. Finally, the Competitive Excellence factor was positively related to the Competitiveness scale of the WOFO and negatively related to NEO-FFI Agreeableness.

4. Implications and limitations of the MTQ

Researchers have once again begun to study motivation from an individual di! erences perspective. Consistent with this perspective shift, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997)


9 8 .

9

0

2 8 . 0

0 6 . 0

2 8 . 0

1 6 . 0

3 4 . 0

3 8 . 0

6 1 6 . 6 . 0 0

0 6 . 0

4 2 4 1 . 1 . 1 . 0 0 0

0 3 . 0

8

7

6 7 8 . 0

5

4

3

2 s e l a c s t e c a f Q T M e h t f o s n o i t a l e r r o c r e t n i d n a n o i t a m r o f n i e v i t 5 i p e l r c s b a e T D 

1

D S n a e M s m e t I

e l b a i r a V

! ! !

!

. d e l i a t o w t , 1 0 . 0 ( p

t a t n a c " i n g i s e r a 8 3 2 . 0

$ "

r

n a h t . d r l e o t 3 2 5 8 0 1 b a 3 2 3 1 9 . . . . . . 6 e 0 0 0 0 r i n 0 0 g l s a n n 7 8 1 6 1 3 8 o o 0 0 0 0 1 2 8 i . . . . . . . g 0 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 a a i l e ! ! ! ! r d r i n o c a 9 4 8 2 1 3 6 3 ; m 8 6 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 0 . 1 . 3 . d . e e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 l i h a t ! ! ! ! ! ! t - g o n o w t l 1 6 2 5 6 5 6 9 4 a , 6 0 0 3 1 2 4 8 . . . . . . . . 4 . r 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 a 0 . e ! ! ! ! ! 0 p p a ( p s t t n a i 6 7 e 2 0 5 6 6 1 2 4 1 t . . c 4 3 0 4 1 3 2 n . . . 0 . . . . 0 6 7 8 1 8 7 6 4 1 a c $ e " o i c n y g i t 4 0 3 6 2 9 7 6 9 s i l 7 7 5 9 4 1 7 9 5 i . . . . . . . . . e b 4 a 4 5 3 7 4 0 5 3 3 3 2 8 1 4 1 9 3 r a l i e 2 r 8 1 y . 0 c n e t 9 0 1 3 9 7 6 4 3 $ s 1 1 1 1 i s " n r n o o i c n s s l a n l g e h a i n y t a n t h o e r i e k e c G e y l e r c r e t a n t n e p t n t n e s n r a l n S i e o p e a e i n a l l a i o e e y i d r x A c a e t n i r r o c e o n o n o g h e t n a v s l a L G x f i t A t o e s n E m i i d A n p i a t t y t a i o t R E e o ' e n a o i s y e r e v e r e t p v M m r i r u r t v l e m m r Q l A i i t h e a h s l i t s c a t o T v e c e a e e a t t o e a r n D D M e v r b r p O C W M E A e o i . . . l u . o n . . . . . s m h i r r e 1 2 3 o 4 5 c 6 7 8 a 9 C o P C A F C 

769

770


Table 6 Oblique (DAPPFR) factor solution for the MTQ facets (Study 2) Factor Variable Personal Mastery Determination Desire to Learn Mastery Goals Competitive Excellence Other Referent Goals Competition Seeking

1

2

!0.17

3

0.00 0.11

0.02 0.67 0.71 !0.10 0.04 0.86

0.50

0.04

!0.01 !0.05

0.70 0.97

Achievement Anxiety Worry Emotionality Evaluation Apprehension

0.05 0.03 0.83 0.10 !0.01 0.70 0.06 0.77 !0.00

Failure Avoidance Active Avoidance

0.61 !0.24 !0.12

Factor intercorrelations Factor 1: Achievement Anxiety Factor 2: Personal Mastery Factor 3: Competitive Excellence Parallel analysis results Real roots Random roots 

* !0.24 !0.21

1 2.88 0.56

* 0.12

*

2

3

1.54 0.38

4

1.20 0.13 0.27 0.16


have described a framework in which motivational traits are posited to have important in#uences on the development and use of motivational skills and performance. In the present paper, we proposed "ve motivational traits and described the development of a measure to assess them. The results of factor analyses of the MTQ facet scales in both Studies 1 and 2 provide evidence for the viability of a multidimensional structure of motivational traits, though only for a three-factor model rather than the "ve factors originally proposed. Speci"cally, the three distinct motivational traits identi"ed included Personal Mastery (a combination of the initially hypothesized Personal Mastery and Hard Work traits), Competitive Excellence, and Achievement Anxiety (a combination of the hypothesized Achievement Anxiety and Failure Avoidance traits). In addition, correlations between these factors and extant measures of achievement, test and trait anxiety, and personality provide initial evidence of construct validity for traits of the MTQ. Three aspects of the "ndings are particularly noteworthy. First, the extended loadings of the WOFO Mastery and Hard Work scales (derived from the achievement motivation approach) and the MPQ Achievement scale (derived from the personality


771

Table 7 Extension analysis (Oblique) to the extant measures Variable

Factor Anxiety

Personal Mastery


!0.11

0.05 0.25

0.69 0.70 !0.04

!0.03

MPQ Achievement

0.07

0.86

0.05

STAI Trait Anxiety

0.52

!0.10

0.03

Reactions to Tests Worry Tension Bodily Reactions Test Irrelevant Thinking

0.67 0.75 0.63 0.44

!0.06

0.12 0.04 0.04 0.06

NEO-FFI Neuroticism Extroversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientiousness

0.63 0.03 0.12 !0.06 !0.03

!0.12

0.27 0.22 0.37 0.71

0.05 0.07 !0.03 !0.60 !0.15

Typical Intellectual Engagement

!0.09

0.55

!0.05

Motivational Skills

!0.36

0.16

0.13

WOFO Mastery Work Competitiveness



0.04 0.12 !0.14

0.23 0.95


taxonomy approach) on the MTQ Personal Mastery factor indicate convergence among measures of achievement from diverse perspectives. As such, the "ndings coordinate classic theory and research in achievement motivation with contemporary work on the structure of personality and research in goal theory. The "ndings also suggest, however, that individual di! erences in Personal Mastery are distinguishable from individual di! erences in a related form of achievement, namely Competitive Excellence. To date, few researchers working from within the achievement motivation approach to the achievement trait complex have distinguished between individual di! erences in achievement related to mastery and those related to competitive excellence (see Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Cassidy & Lynn, 1989, Helmreich & Spence, 1978, Nichols, 1984; Jackson et al., 1976; VandeWalle, 1997, for exceptions). Further, aspects of achievement related to Competitive Excellence have generally not been represented among de"nitions of trait achievement from the personality taxonomy approach (a notable exception is Murray, 1938). The identi"cation and distinction of the Personal Mastery and Competitive Excellence traits has both theoretical and practical implications for motivation research.

772


Pragmatically, the results we obtained are consistent with extant theorizing on the in#uence of mastery and performance goal orientation, and suggest that the MTQ Mastery and Competitive Excellence facets may provide useful measurement of mastery and performance goal orientation among adults. From a theoretical perspective, the pattern of relationships among MTQ facets suggests new avenues for research in goal orientation. For example, as shown in Study 2, the Other Referent Goals facet loaded on both the Competitive Excellence and Achievement Anxiety factors, whereas the Competition Seeking facet loaded only on the Competitive Excellence factor. The splitting of the other Referent Goals facet across these two factors suggests that future research be directed toward understanding the relationship between individual di! erences in competitive excellence facets and performance orientation. In academic situations, individuals who adopt performance goals as a function of strong tendencies toward performing well compared to others may respond di! erently to failure than individuals who adopt performance goals as a function of dispositional tendencies toward competition seeking. It may be, for example, that de"cits in self-regulatory functioning associated with a performance goal orientation stem from tendencies toward social comparison more than tendencies toward competition seeking per se (see, for example, Nicholls, 1984). Second, perhaps the most intriguing and challenging "ndings relate to Achievement Anxiety and Failure Avoidance. Our failure to obtain evidence to support a motivational trait related to failure avoidance is disappointing, and remains a challenge for future research. Contemporary researchers (e.g., Elliott & Church, 1997; Midgely et al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997) have argued for a distinction between individual di ! erences in appetitively oriented (approach) and aversively oriented (avoidence) motivational tendencies, and initial evidence for the distinction has been provided using measures that assess such tendencies in speci"c contexts, such as the classroom. At a more general level, however, researchers have generally not been successful in developing valid self-report measures of individual di! erences of motivational tendencies to avoid failure (see, Spangler, 1992). Although our "ndings provide some evidence for the association of Active Avoidance with the broader Achievement Anxiety factor, it is clear that individual di! erences in the tendency to avoid failure only share partial overlap with traditional conceptualizations of anxiety in achievement situations. Future research to clarify this tendency might focus on using di! erent formats to assess the trait. Promising work by James (1998) suggests that alternative response formats may, in fact, prove useful for assessing individual di! erences in socially undesirable, avoidance-oriented traits such as Failure Avoidance. Third, the results obtained provide partial support for the feasibility of the motivational trait-skill formulation proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997). Speci"cally, in Study 2 we included a brief measure of individual di! erences in motivational skills. This measure was negatively related to individual di! erences in Achievement Anxiety, suggesting that persons high in these trait tendencies tend to report fewer motivational skills. Contrary to expectations, however, motivational skills were only weakly related to individual di! erences in Personal Mastery and Competitive Excellence. Although longitudinal research is needed to fully evaluate the hypothesis that achievement-based (versus anxiety-based) motivational tendencies facilitate the development


773

of motivational skills, it is also important for future research to examine the validity of the motivational skills measure. In the current measure, motivational skills are de"ned largely in terms of self-e$cacy for learning activities. Following recent work by Orange (2000); Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986), and others (e.g., Schunk & Zimmerman, 1998), future research is needed to investigate the multidimensional nature of such skills, including skills in help-seeking, self-monitoring, and strategies for enhancing attentional control (see Kuhl, this volume). As such, our "ndings represent a "rst step in distinguishing individual di! erences in motivational traits from the development and use of motivational skills in purposive endeavors.

Acknowledgements

This article was completed as part of the "rst author's thesis requirements. We would like to thank Phillip L. Ackerman, Auke Tellegen, Rich Arvey, Ernest Davenport, Rodney A. McCloy, and Carolyn Jagacinski for their helpful comments on this work. Support for portions of this research was provided by the U.S. Air Force O$ce of Scienti"c Research (F49620-98) and the National Science Foundation (NSF/SBE9223357).

References Ackerman, L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Generational di! erences and parent-child resemblance in achievement motives and locus of control: A cross-sectional analysis. Personality and Indi vidual Di w erences, 10, 1237}1242. Ackerman, P. L., & Cianciolo, A. T. (1999). Psychomotor abilities via touchpanel testing: Measurement innovations, construct, and criterion validity. Human Performance, 12, 231}273. Ackerman, PL., & Kanfer, R. (1993). Integrating laboratory and "eld study for improving selection: Development of a battery for predicting Air Tra$c Controller success. Journal of Applied Psychology , 78, 413}432. Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 61, 207}215. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology , 80, 260}267. Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Re view, 64, 359}372. Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley. Atkinson, J. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived as motive to approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 60, 52}63. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big "ve personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology , 44, 1}26. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (1999). The "ve factor model of personality and job performance: A second order meta-analysis. In G. Stewart (Chair), Answers to lingering questions about personality research. Symposium conducted at the 14th annual convention of the society of industrial and organizational psychology, Atlanta. Bempechat, J., London, P., & Dweck, C. S. (1991). Children's conceptions of ability in major domains: An interview and experimental study. Child Study Journal , 21, 11}36.

774


Block, J. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic shift or improving the quality of research. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology (pp. 37}63). New York: Wiley. Bou! ard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology , 65, 317}329. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes , 67 , 26}48. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin , 92, 111}135. Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology , 62, 301}312. Costa Jr., P. T. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in industrial/organizational psychology. Applied Psychology: An International Re view, 45, 225}241. Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality in ventory and xve-factor inventory professional manual . Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further speci"cation of the "ve robust factors of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116}123. Dollinger, S. J., & Orf, L. A. (1991). Personality and performance in personality : Conscientiousness and openness. Journal of Research in Personality , 25, 276}284. Dweck, C. S. (1996). Capturing the dynamic nature of personality. Journal of Research in Personality , 30, 348}362. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256}273. Dwyer, P. S. (1937). The determination of the factor loadings of a given test from the known factor loadings of other tests. Psychometrika, 2, 173}178. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 72, 218}232. Elliott, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 70, 461}475. Entwistle, N. J. (1968). Academic motivation and school attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 38, 181}188. Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16-, 5- or 3-Criteria for taxonomic paradigm.Personality and Individual Di w erences, 12, 773}790. Go! , M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: assessment of typical intellectual engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology , 84, 537}552. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist , 48, 26}34. Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In W. Strobe, & M. Hewstone,European review of social psychology , vol. 4 (pp. 141}185). London: Wiley. Good, L. R., & Good, K. C. (1975). An objective measure of the motive to avoid failure. Psychology, 12, 11}14. Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological In ventory administrator ' s guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action . New York: Springer. Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1978). The work and family orientation questionnaire: An objective instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes toward family and career. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 35. Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, e! ects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research , 58, 4777. Hermans, H. J. M. (1970). A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 54, 353}363. Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle for approach and avoidance. In M. P. Zanna, Ad vances in experimental social psychology, vol. 30 (pp. 1}46).New York: Academic Press. `

a


775

Hough, L. M. (1992). The Big Five personality variables * construct confusion: Description versus prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139}155. Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related validities of personality constructs and the e! ect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 581}595. Humphreys, L. G., & Montanelli Jr., R. G. (1975). An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 193}206. Jackson, D. N., Ahmed, S. A., & Heapy, N. A. (1976). Is achievement a unitary construct? Journal of Research in Personality, 10, 1}21. Jagacinski, C. M. (1992). The e! ects of task involvement and ego involvement on achievement-related cognitions and behaviors. In D. H. Schunk, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the classroom (pp. 307}326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of relative motive strength via conditional reasoning. Organizational Research Methods, 1, 131}163. Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. (1996). Motivational skills and self-regulation for learning: A trait perspective. Learning and Indi vidual Di w erences, 8, 185}209. Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work motivation. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings, Research in organizational beha vior , vol. 19 (pp. 1}56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.. Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, F. H. (1991). Goals and self-regulation: Applications of theory to work settings. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich, Ad vances in Motivation and Achie vement , vol. 7 (pp. 287}326). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Kuhl, J. (2000). The volitional basis of Personality Systems Interactions theory: Applications in learning and treatment contexts. International Journal of Education Research, 33, 665}703. Lamb, R. R., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). The unisex edition of the ACT interest in ventory. Iowa City, IA: American College Testing. Lao, R. C. (1980). Di! erential factors a! ecting male and female academic performance in high school. The Journal of Psychology, 104, 119}127. Lynn, R. (1969). An achievement motivation questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology , 60, 529}534. Martocchio, J. J. (1994). E! ects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-e$cacy, and learning in training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 819}825. McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Henry Holt. McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953).The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. Mehrabian, A. (1969). Measures of achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 29, 445}451. Midgely, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, M., Anderman, L. H., Anderman, E., & Roesen, R. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing student's achievement orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology , 23, 113}131. Montanelli Jr., R. G., & Humphreys, L. G. (1976). Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study. Psychometrika, 41, 341}348. Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety: Literature review and a revised Worry-Emotionality Scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541}555. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality . New York: Oxford University Press. Muray, H. A. (1943). The thematic apperception test manual . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Re view, 91, 328}346. Orange, C. (2000). Using peer modeling to teach self-regulation. Journal of Experimental Education , 68, 21}39. Roedel, T. D., Schraw, G., & Plake, B. S. (1994). Validation of a measure of learning and performance goal orientations. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 54, 1013}1021. Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety, vol. 5. New York: Wiley. `

a

776


Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference:Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 , 929}938. Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning . From teaching to self-re yective practice. New York: Guilford. Snow, R. E., Corno, L., Jackson, D., III. (1996). Individual di! erences in a! ective and conative functions. In: D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243}310). New York: Macmillan. Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140}154. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement related motives and behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and Achievement Motives. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company. Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press. Tabernero, C., & Wood, R. E. (1999). Implicit theories versus social construal of ability in self-regulation and performance on a complex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78, 104}127. Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) . Minneapolis, MN: Author. Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2000). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In: S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and e valuation, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Tucker, L. R., & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1981). Transformationof factors by arti xcial personal probability functions . Report No. RR-81-58. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ. VandeWalle, D. M. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal-orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement , 57 , 995}1015. Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist , 30, 173}187. Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Motivation and academic achievement: The e! e cts of personality traits and the quality of experience. Journal of Personality , 59, 539}574. Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 56 , 407}415. Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing students' use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal , 23, 614}628.

Eric D. Heggestad is an Assistant Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Colorado State University (USA). He received his Ph.D. from the Personality Research Program at the University of Minnesota. His research interests include understanding the ways in which individual di! erences in personality, motivational processes, and situational factors jointly in#uence learning and job performance. Ruth Kanfer is a Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She received her Ph.D. from Arizona State University and completed post-doctoral training at the University of Illinois. Her research has focused on issues related to motivation and self-regulation. She presently is studying the processes by which motivational traits and skills in#uence skill learning and performance.

Motivational Trait Questionnaire, Heggestad & Kanfer

Recommend Documents